www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life The Christian East & West Immaculate Conception, Assumption of Mary, & Papal Infallibility

>>>In my experience, I have not met anyone Byzantine Catholics who disbelieve any of these things.<<<

Prepare to be enlightened. In regard to the three doctrines in question, I would have to say that:

(a) I do not believe that the Pope is ever infallible, even when speaking ex cathedra, and that to believe he can is not compatible with the Byzantine phromena which Rome, in its confusion, continually insists we rediscover and renew. Only the Church as a whole is infallible.

(b) I neither believe nor disbelieve the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception, but consider it to be irrelevant within the context of Byzantine anthropology and soteriology. Put crudely, one might say that in the Byzantine perspective we are ALL born without the stain of original sin, so what's the big deal. From a practical perspective, I do not think that mariological doctrines can properly be dogmatized since they do not deal specifically with the issues of the nature of God and Christ, or with the mystery of salvation history. These are matters of the interior life of the Church, and the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception rightfully can only be considered a doctrinal expression of the Latin Church. It is neither orthodox nor heretical from an Eastern Christian perspective, just irrelevant. It should never have been dogmatized, let alone dogmatized by papal fiat.

(c) All Eastern Christians believe in the Dormition and Assumption of the Theotokos. However, such a belief is not part of Church dogma, but of the interior life of the Church, and thus any statements on the part of Pius XII regarding the Assumption cannot be considered dogmatic, but merely a particular expression of the Latin Church. In addition, it was improper of Pius to make use of the doctrine of infallibility (which, if the matter came up today would never have passed through a general council) to proclaim as a dogma something that is outside the meaning of dogma.

I have to totally agree with Brandon.

All Catholic dogma is binding upon ALL CATHOLICS. The Pope's infallibility is no exception. The Pope has universal jurisdiction over every and all Catholic churches (includes liturgical practices as well). If the Pope speaks ex cathedra, he is speaking for the universal Church. These statements are not open to interpretation. Case closed. Game, set, match.

It has been said here before that Eastern Catholicism has an identity crisis. This is true. One big reason is that many EC's have a hard time accepting reality. EC's are under the Pope's direct jurisdiction. If you want to be in union with Rome, then that is the consequence.

Posted by Stuart: "(a) I do not believe that the Pope is ever infallible, even when speaking ex cathedra, and that to believe he can is not compatible with the Byzantine phromena which Rome, in its confusion, continually insists we rediscover and renew. Only the Church as a whole is infallible."

This is the Orthodox position, not the Catholic, Roman or Byzantine Catholic. Stuart, your statements are, according to Catholicism, heretical. If you can provide proof that Vatican I is not binding for Eastern Catholics, please do so.

Greg

We Orthodox disagree about ...the issue of non-abortificient artificial birth control.

If allowing artificial birth control is considered doctrine, that�s a major Achilles� heel of the Orthodox position. The Pope is on the side of the Church of the Fathers on this one.

Roman Catholics disagree about a number of RC moral teachings

Which is really irrelevant since the magisterium is crystal-clear on these moral teachings.

Serge

<A HREF="http://oldworldrus.com">Old World Rus�</A>

Serge --

I agree. The Magisterium is also crystal clear on Vatican I as well, but that is not universally accepted either (by RCs and ECs).

Brendan

Stuart said:
>>(a) I do not believe that the Pope is ever infallible, even when speaking ex cathedra, and that to believe he can is not compatible with the Byzantine phromena which Rome, in its confusion, continually insists we rediscover and renew. Only the Church as a whole is infallible.<<

And thus we get back to the problem of which Councils are Ecumanical, and thus infallible. Yeah, this is a MUCH easier to defend position.

Catholics believe in Papal Infallibility, Conciliar Infallibility, and the Infallibility of the Ordinary Magisterium.

Dear Brendan,

It is always a privilege to hear from you, especially after the public relations beating the MP got last week .

Your analysis of my earlier post is most juridical - you must either be a lawyer or else wanted to be one at some point.

But that's fine, I still think you're O.K. .

With respect to fasting etc., it is true that Rome established a canon law for the Eastern Churches.

But Rome did this in consultation with the Churches and with the traditions of those Churches.

In a sense, Rome has served to protect certain Eastern CAtholic Churches from themselves and the Latinisms they have adopted for themselves quite voluntarily.

A case in point is the use of the Iconostasis and how some Ukrainian Churches (I know this is HARD to believe ), gasp, don't use them. Rome didn't like that and said so. There are numerous traditions Rome has asked us to go back to, but SOME of our bishops and priests just don't want to.

(I am trying to make you smile, I hope you are!).

Our Patriarch also regularly pronounces on liturgical discipline quite independently of Rome and we listen to him. The fact that I'm calling him "Patriarch" at all is something that I'm doing quite independently of Rome, so there . . . And many of our churches do the same, again independently of Rome.

I didn't mean to lie about the appointment of bishops. It was not my intention, I had no idea, don't think I'm sensitive to this, no, absolutely not . . .

But I think you've been away from the Eastern Catholics too long, Brendan

Recent episcopal appointments in the Ukrainian Catholic Church have been made by the Patriarchal Synod in Lviv ALONE and Rome was simply informed of these decisions.

Rome hasn't excommunicated or defrocked anyone so far, so I guess that is O.K. with Rome.

Also, the Beatifications by His Holiness in Ukraine were done upon the completion of the local process in Ukraine ONLY. The findings of the preliminary investigations into the lives and martyrdom of the Beati (forgive me, Stuart!) were not referred to Rome, but the Pope directly approved them as such.

I almost fell off my deacon's bench when I heard about that . . .

Our Patriarch is himself exercising his rights as the Head of a Particular Church. Rome hasn't scolded him yet for calling himself "Patriarch" or for putting his Cardinal's ring into his pocket (at least not in public ).

The Pope will not oppose him doing this. When we Eastern Catholics act on our historic rights and claim them, Rome will respect that and is respecting that. One just can't turn one's back ever, you know .

As for the Ecumenical Councils, I agree that there was no legal requirement for the Patriarch of the West to ratify whatever.

And the East criticized the West on more than one occasion, to be sure (e.g. the change to Saturday as a fast day in the West).

But would you not agree, Sir, that the general rule was that the Pope was First in the roster of Patriarchs at those Councils and that it would have been highly irregular to hold them without his participation in some way?

The ideal would be that the five patriarchates all be there in hierarchical order to ratify the decisions of a Council.

So I don't think I was lying or trying to mislead someone or else just blowing off steam . . .

As for control etc., Orthodox Patriarchates (no particular one comes to mind ) can be as juridical and authoritarian as anyone.

The Western perception right now is that the MP is more papal than the pope in this respect.

The Ukrainians are getting a bigger and better break with Rome, than with Moscow.

Have a great day!

Alex

I'm optimistic. I think that the dispute east-west about the inmaculate conception, assuption, purgatory and original sin, is merely terminological and cultural. It's known that the interpretation of all these points is not the same (the dialogue with the nestorian and non-chalcedonean churches can prove it).
The main difference is the "written definition" of these catholic doctrines that are based on the latin tradition and culture (although it's interesting that the dogma of the assuption is based on an ancient eastern tradition written by Saint Jerome /I'm not sure/).
For example: the catholic doctrine of the purgatory has been influenced by the latin medioeval culture and the purgatory viewed as a "jail for souls with spirits and monsters" is merely a legend and a tradition of the west. Today this point is clear: the catholic church doesn't confirm the existence of a "place in the space". The purgatory are the souls of those who die in the grace of the Lord but have some venial sins and they will purify their souls and their sins will be forgiven after expiation.
This doctrine is justified by the Bible (Judas the Machabean).

Dear Greg,

What you say of the Pope's position is true.

However, the Pope leaves the liturgical and other aspects of the lives of the Eastern Catholic Churches to themselves.

If anything, when Rome does issue decrees for the Eastern CHurches, it is to save them from themselves, from becoming alienated from their Eastern heritages, at least today.

If the Pope had the relation to the liturgical heritage of the Eastern Catholic Churches as you imply, then why aren't we all Novus Ordo?

And if we were, where would disaffected Roman Catholics go?

The fasting laws of my Church are shaped by my Patriarch, not by my Pope.

This is all laid out in the Decree on the Eastern Churches and subsequent Pontifical statements on these matters.

The Pope shares his authority and jurisdiction with the local Patriarchs.

It was the Popes themselves who have set the policy with respect to the Eastern Christian heritage that is to be maintained, in union with Rome, "nec plus, nec minus, nec aliter."

Having said that, they themselves have defined our ecclesial relationship.

That is just the way things have been, and are.

Alex

Alex writes:

[Recent episcopal appointments in the Ukrainian Catholic Church have been made by the Patriarchal Synod in Lviv ALONE and Rome was simply informed of these decisions.]

Then perhaps Alex can explain to us why the Ukrainian Catholic Bishop here in Philadelphia was consecrated by the Papal Nuncio instead of the Patriarchal Synod in Livov.

Or why the last two Ukrainian Catholic bishops here in the U.S. submitted their requests for retirement directly to the Pope instead of the Ukrianian Catholic Cardinal in Livov.

Are there a double set of rules designed according to geographical areas?

Also, since you bring up fasting regulations, what are the current fasting rules for receiving communion? I hear you, like the Roman Catholics, can stop off at McDonald's on the way to Church. Am I correct?

Eric, Ignatius, & Greg,

As a cantor in the Byzantine Catholic Church, I have yet to find anything on the dogma or feast of the "Immaculate Conception" in our Typicon (Liturgical Rule Book) or Festal Menaion (Book of Feast Day Hymns). If "lex orandi, lex credendi" still means anything, then ... you figure the rest out for yourselves. We do celebrate the Feast of St. Anne's Conception though.

God bless!
Joe
Deacon-Student


[This message has been edited by Joe Thur (edited 07-05-2001).]

So lex orandi-lex credendi is a one way street? And it's only limited to liturgical prayer? That's what you're saying? There's no movement from belief/doctrine to prayer, just prayer to doctrine and there's no taking into account anything that isn;t in the Divine Liturgy or the liturgy of the hours?

Just trying to be clear on things.

Ignatius,

The Typicon does take into account every liturgical service.

In what Churches does the inverse Rule of Faith "lex credendi, lex orandi" apply?

Joe


[This message has been edited by Joe Thur (edited 07-05-2001).]

So you don't think that praying springs from at least an already implicit belief? Interesting.

By the way, my question also address NON-liturgical prayer.

Dear Robert,

How wonderful to hear from you!

There are bishops who are more papal than the Pope, as you point out.

My own suggestions for them is that they go quickly and join the Roman Rite since that is where they clearly belong.

Ukrainian Orthodox have similar problems with their Russophile priests and bishops.

Problems, problems!

I don't know how they do things in the U.S., but up here we fast from midnight before we attend Holy Communion.

I know the good people in Russia don't go to MacDonald's before Communion, but there is a very good reason why they don't .

It is nice to know you have such a high opinion of us Byzantine Catholics, Robert.

It is always great to have such wonderfully complimentary guests on this Forum.

Frankly, I think you are wasted here. The OCA should get you involved in missions so that you could test your theory that more flies are to be obtained with vinegar than with honey.

I personally prefer A&W burgers, but MacDonald's will do just fine. Those golden arches have sometimes been interpreted as religious symbols of some sort, kind of like modern cupolas.

And as for going to Communion, at least we go to Communion.

The behaviour of some of my Orthodox Christian friends is such that can sometimes be said to be beneath criticism as well.

Oh well, if I'm ever in the market for a narrow, hyper-critical perspective on religion, I'll know who to contact.

With regrets,

Alex





[This message has been edited by Orthodox Catholic (edited 07-05-2001).]

Ignatius,

In what Church does the inverse Rule of Faith "lex credendi, lex orandi" apply?

What do you call a dogma that isn't celebrated?

Joe